apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

6oo EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
Though this epistle contains very few and sHght references to external
incidents which furnish materials for testing its authenticity, it satisfies
the test wherever we are able to it.
apply The allusions to the companions
of Ignatius (§ g) and to the letters of the martyr (§ 13) have
been considered already (p. 588 sq) and the verdict was favourable to its
;
genuineness. The reference to the comparative antiquity of the Philippian
and Smyrnsean Churches (§ it) is at all events in strict accordance
with historical truth (see i. p. 462, iii. p. 343), and its incidental character
precludes the suspicion of artifice. Only two persons are mentioned by
name in direct connexion with this letter.
They both bear Latin names,
and in a Roman colony like Philippi this is not surprising. The one,
Crescens, is the bearer of the letter, and seems to have been connected
with Philippi as well as with Smyrna (§ 14). The name is found in a
Philippian inscription (see iii. p. 349). The other, Valens, was a presbyter
of the Philippian Church, who had been guilty of avarice, and
apparently of dishonesty (§ 11). The inscriptions show that Valens was
a not uncommon name at Philippi (see iii. p. 340). But the crime of
Valens points to another subtle coincidence which we may fairly consider
undesigned and which therefore may be taken as an indication of
genuineness. In the earlier part of the letter (§§ 2, 4, 6) there are
repeated warnings against covetousness, occurring abruptly and, as we
might suppose, inopportunely (see in. p. 328). It is
only
towards the
close of the letter, when the sin of Valens is denounced, that we learn
at length what significance these warnings, which to us appear unseasonable,
would have for the writer and for his readers.
It remains for me to examine Ritschl's theory of interpolation ;
and
my task will be done. Like the view of the entire spuriousness
which has just been considered, this theory, as I have already explained
(P- 579)> supposes a connexion with the forgery or interpolation of the
Ignatian Epistles, and is
open to all or nearly all the same objections.
As these have been already considered, I need not revert to this part of
the subject again. It will be sufficient to examine the difficulties inherent
in the theory
itself.
The passages which Ritschl condemns as interpolated are these ;
Se^a/i.eVot9...eKAeXcyyu!evwv koi ; § 3 TaCra, a8eX